mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl
To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] setup_per_cpu_areas in 2.5.8pre3
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:24:29 +0200 (MEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <UTC200204170824.g3H8OTZ28753.aeb@smtp.cwi.nl> (raw)

    > Now that I am writing anyway, one of the changes I needed
    > to compile 2.5.8pre3 is the following.

    Yeah, better patch below

Good.

    > Of course the real fix is to remove the #ifdef's,
    > maybe using a weak symbol instead, or some other construction
    > that defines an empty default that can be replaced by an actual
    > routine.

    Not unless you make it as readable as the current code.  Having magic
    appearing functions sounds cool, but beware that the cure might be
    worse than the disease.

But maybe I do not think that the current code is very readable.
Probably because just before fixing this compilation problem I had
to fix a different one where atomic_dec_and_lock was undefined,
and one finds a forest of #ifdef's in spinlock.h.

#ifdef's are evil. You have one, and there are two possible sources.
Easy and readable. You have two, and there are four. Already a small
effort to check that indeed all four combinations are OK. That was
what went wrong in the setup_per_cpu_areas case. You have three and
it is almost certain that someone forgets to check all possible
eight cases.

#ifdef's hide source from the compiler, so that when stuff compiles
for the developer it need not compile for the next person who comes
along. We have a kernel compilation project because of that.

So, if we can replace a certain type of #ifdef use by a different
formal construction, where all source is seen by the compiler,
that might well be progress.

Andries

             reply	other threads:[~2002-04-17  8:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-04-17  8:24 Andries.Brouwer [this message]
2002-04-17 15:11 ` Tom Rini
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-14 21:15 Andries.Brouwer
2002-04-16 12:48 ` Rusty Russell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=UTC200204170824.g3H8OTZ28753.aeb@smtp.cwi.nl \
    --to=andries.brouwer@cwi.nl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®